Sam Hardwick's web journal

Some are interested in whether or not stereotypes and prejudices are accurate, others are not. The former people see the division as “scientific / rational vs. emotional / political”, the latter see the division as “pro-prejudice vs. anti-prejudice”.

1 Comment on A way to divide people

Pekka Tolvanen: Not sure if the “truly” prejudiced people who aren’t interested in accuracy would see the division as anti- vs. pro-prejudice.
￼
Sam Hardwick: Why not? Wouldn’t they think, “Those anti-prejudicers hate us because of our prejudices, but there’s nothing wrong with our prejudices!”
￼
Pekka Tolvanen :Depends on what you mean by interest in accuracy I guess. Both non-interested groups might be very small groups of very weird people, or big groups of people who ignore evidence selectively and don’t see themselves as irrational or prejudiced.
￼
Sam Hardwick: True. I think of both groups as being quite large. The non-interested prejudiced group is “openly clannish”, which is not unusual, and many in the non-interested non-prejudiced group believe that whether or not stereotypes are accurate, believing in stereotypes perpetuates them so it is virtuous to disbelieve in stereotypes regardless of how accurate they are.
￼
Sam Hardwick: (Also many people legitimately believe that stereotypes and prejudices are completely false, and are not interested in arguments about their accuracy because they view such arguments as an attack. I once got into an argument about whether gay men are more likely to have HIV, and simply couldn’t get past the other person’s anti-homophobia barriers.)